Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
Let me see if I understand you correctly: it was OK for the Hibernians to raid the tribes in Caledonia, Valentia, Maxima Caesariensis, Britannia Secunda and those of south-western Britannia, because that was the norm for the time, but not for Britain to build an empire in later periods, even though that, too was the norm - I refer you to Sweden, Russia, Holland, France, Austria, Spain and Portugal, for example. Do I see a double standard here?

No. I didnt mention anything about any of it being ok. At least not from my modern perspective....I am sure the successful aggressors in each case perfectly justified their own actions in their own eyes however.

The trouble with discussing Ireland is that it ALWAYS involves centuries of history that, in any other country, would long ago have been forgiven and forgotten, but, as I have suggested, the Irish need someone to blame for their own flawed character - and who better than England?

That basically goes both ways...your saying in a way if you look at it the right way that the Irish "needed" all the strife of being dominated by England to become worth something to anyone and hence should basically thank you for it?

Speak to any Irish patriot and he will claim that Ireland has been under the yoke of England for 800 years. That's his starting point, and there's not one good thing that England has done for that country ever since. To hear him, you'd think the English had nothing better to do than make the lives of Irishmen miserable.

As I said perspective in these instances is everything.

The Irish modern day "nationalist" is going to say that very thing. His perspective is that of someone who has been filled with many generations of nationalism at work. Even if his ancestors only said "Dam Lord Fitzgerald he and his Normans to hell he and Lord O'Brien that traitor are bastards and will rue the day they invaded my lands. I will get the fyrd of the Earl of Northampton to attack Fritzgerald forces in Wales before they depart and then I can deal with O' Brien myself""

Obviously, historically they were looking at such conflicts much more locally in nature.

All I did was point out that both you and Ian appear to be biased on the side of the conquerors by much the same fashion...nationalist dogma having been propagated upon you your whole life perhaps.

Well, we had two empires to build and three world wars to win. We had to industrialise the world and we had to ensure free trade during the Pax Britannica.

Just like the Romans had to ironically instill Pax Romana huh? Nice guys they were hey? (depending upon one's perspective of course wink wink)

What makes it worse is that so many of the claims are untrue, and many more are gross exaggerations.

On both sides I am sure.

For most of history, Britain's only interest in Ireland was to ensure that it would not be used by its enemies as a staging post for an invasion from the west. Its military adventures there were simply to expel French, Spanish or Jacobite forces that sought to use Ireland for that very purpose, or to put down violent uprisings by Irish rebels of one sort or another. Apart from that, Britain was happy to let the bogtrotters, as they called them, live out their miserable existence as they liked. There was nothing else in Ireland that interested them one little bit.

That is certifiably "one" perspective...though you of all people should admit not necessarily the only one or the most truthful necessarily. lots of exploitation was involved on both sides I am almost positive. Just as war mongering Zionists infiltrated my place of birth and gave fuel to the anti-Jew fire burning in many an Arab heart.

As I have said before, and no-one has yet refuted it, the trouble with the Irish is that they cannot get along with each other. It is they who oppressed their fellow countrymen, and rose up against each other: North v South, Catholic v Protestant, landowners v subsistence farmers ... and so on right up to the modern day.

So...your saying that made it perfectly ok for the Big BG to intercede huh? <much like it must then be ok for the Americans to intercede in the middle east or any where else ?

So let's forget history and look at the position today.

Yes because arguments concerning the history of the situation wont help you when you have a historian to argue with. lol (keep in mind if I were on my knees before I couldn't talk back with your manhood in my mouth winks)

The IRA is now spent; all that remains is its political arm. It has been replaced by a smaller group, the Continuity IRA (and a small number of similar groupings) who continue to deal out death to other Irishmen. In reply, the UVF have carried out their own revenge attacks on Catholics (in between murdering other loyalists as part of an internal feud!) Do we still see one Irishman oppressing another? I think we do. Where are the British? I'll leave that open ...

Continuing to do what they have done? Hold Dominion in one way or another...which imho isn't anything terrible compared to what their ancestors have done, which is mainly protecting their own security (though sometimes not any more nicely than their American allies do in other areas etc). I do agree that the resistance if futile (in both cases...England's and America's...neither side has any real apparent hope of victory with either of their respected adversaries IRA cant win, Al-quiada cant win, and vice versa) IE both should give peace a chance and stop the fighting period!

Someone said I should get glasses after I suggested your previous summary of Irish history showed the Irish problems were created by Irishmen and not the British. To see the Irish as oppressed by the English in this day and age would require a very heavy rose-tint on the lenses. Even looking at the whole timeline, to believe that England has done nothing but harm to that country would be spectacular self-delusion.

Oh I agree...yet you have managed to continue prior to that statement make it sound as if Engalnd is the good guy and Ireland was the bad...just saying. Heck in a way your still doing it which makes my BS shields still go up. (as much as they do whilst arguing religion with Thorne btw)

Finally, my wife is an Irish Catholic. During the last half of the 20th Century, as she saw what the IRA and UVF were doing to each other, and, more importantly, to other innocent men women and children in Belfast, Londonderry and elsewhere, she and her family admitted to being ashamed to be Irish. I am descended from an orange Glaswegian who objected to my marriage for sectarian reasons, and I admit to being ashamed of what the Loyalists have done. Who could glory in what has happened there? Apart from Martin Sheen, perhaps.
lol Martian I will conceed is a complete idiot. Despite portraying the President we all wish we had on TV.

I also agree that it is beyound deployarable that some factions strike out at the very people they claim to represent in their resistance to tyranny. But it doesnt surprise me. Americans, like the Irish did it while resisting Brittan, The Jews did it while resisting Rome, The Russians did it while resisting Germany...the list goes on and on and on.

And I am quite certian...everyone on all sides in any of these deplorable engadgments...thought their side and their's alone was the right one.